[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: polls and arguments
My thought is tangential yet relevent to this thread. I agree with Terry
that the debate community has found a surging interest in political,
election oriented positions. While Terry points to one problem, I have
another.
I have never understood the logic of the position. It seems that we are
ignoring the "rhetoric" that accompanies policy making. I have yet to hear
an affirmative argue that if Clinton risks being blamed by the electorate
for bad policy making, he will provide a counter-story, a counter-spin.
He will make every possible attempt to justify, or redefine, or accuse,
etc. It does not seem logical to assume that just beacuse people are
generally biased against environmental regulations that they will vote
against any politician advocating them. Those politicians, and their
opponents, get to argue the meaning and/or interpretation of that policy
through media soundbites and advertising.
It seems logical to me that the test for determining which spin the
American electorate will buy is the debate round. If the affirmative can
provide enough good reasons to warrant assent, then it seems logical that
Clinton should be able to persuade most people to warrant assent.
Maybe I am the victim of too many bad Clinton debates. Hopefully.
Peace,
Matt
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page